America hides its nuke arsenal - They new Syria would start WW3

nake13
reply to post by Pinkorchid

 

As Zaphod says,why would any country want to move their strategic nukes?, were you perhaps alluding to the movement of tactical nuclear weapons such as free-fall air dropped systems or artillery shells? Again, these weapons are stored in purpose built facilities with very strict regulation on their transportation.

Because there are two Governments at play here "The Shadow Government" and the infiltrated elected Government.
A possible scenario for the movments of nukes would be that the Shadow Government is fearful of an uprising from the people and is taking possession of some nukes to use a leverage against the people.
eg. the possible nuke event at Charleston Harbour , this is leverage to be used possibly to blackmail the American people.

Just as with the official government, the Shadow Government has functional branches. However, unlike the official government, the purpose of the non-executive branches of the Shadow Government is simply to distribute various functions, but not to achieve a system of checks and balances, as was supposed to happen constitutionally between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the U.S. Government. That is because the Shadow Government is a creature of a powerful elite, who need not fear being dominated by an instrument of their own creation.

In the Shadow Government five branches may be identified. These branches are: the Executive Branch, the Intelligence Branch, the War Department, the Weapons Industry Branch, and the Financial Department.

www.bilderberg.org...

Another is that they are moving them because intelligence has alerted them to information that the location of the nukes is know to perceived enemy forces and they want them moved prior to any escalation of hostilities with those enemies.

reply to post by tsurfer2000h


Who knows these days , who is telling the truth.
Can't be any worse than the information from the M.S.M now can it and at least that site will not tell you to move along there's nothing to see here , while deliberately hiding essential information from the public.
It's a matter of what is available and a good dose of decrement when reading any information on the internet.
To blanket this site totally and say it is of no value for information is a gross overkill , given that all sources are suspect.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Perhaps because she was just the Base operator , she was being kept out of the loop and had witnessed some sort of transport coming into the base.

Why was she keep out of the loop , well she may just be an ordinary soldier and not included in the Secret Government team.

She had a slip of the tongue anyway and was attempting to not leak information, so she was trying to do her job but unfortunately failing at it.

Why would the US move its Nukes from secure locations to places where they would no longer secure or even usable? We have these things called subs. They are hidden and full of enough nukes to turn the planet in to slag. They exist in case somebody were able to destroy all are other nukes in a suprise first strike that for some reason we could not detect. We do not need to hide nukes from anybody. They know that even if they managed to get all the ones in silos and bunkers they would still be wiped out by the sub based ones. Not that anybody would start a nuclear war over Syria.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


But according to Alex Jones these are unmarked trucks, like Uhaul or something, with no security. So she saw an unmarked truck driving around on base, and immediately knew they were transferring nuclear weapons?

reply to post by MrSpad


When you have a power struggle going on , within the U.S for control of the nation, one faction may decided that taking charge of the odd nuke may be useful if it comes down to and internal struggle for power. Have they found that missing one yet?

By the looks of this article the care of nukes has been less than exemplary .

The official records list two lost atomic bombs off the coast of New Jersey, one lost bomb off the coast of the State of Washington, one off Oahu, one somewhere between Hawaii and Japan, one in Savannah, a few others about which the details are murky, and one in North Carolina. In addition, we have scores of nukes that blew up without going nuclear, including two in Spain, three in Canada, four in Greenland, five in Indiana, two in New Mexico, at least one in California, and one in Morocco that almost certainly went nuclear if only partially.

So what do we make of the lost nukes? Are they dangerous? and can they have been found?

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Good luck recovering them without anyone knowing. And those "not so exemplary" handling incidents were almost all plane crashes, and at least a couple from subs that sank. As long as you have man made equipment carrying them there are going to be accidents.

reply to post by Zaphod58


She didn't state nuclear weapons , just the word weapons.

His question was "Did you receive any transports lately?"

She added the word Weapons , which is unusual , he could have been asking about any number of different kinds of transport.

A fraudulent slip perhaps.
and Freudian as well.

This is not absolute , only an investigation into some weird goings on in South Carolina teamed with the Senators remark.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Exactly though. Bases transfer weapons around all the time. That doesn't mean that they were nuclear weapons. Shipping conventional weapons makes so much more sense than nuclear weapons that it's not even funny. But everyone hears "weapons" and immediately jumps to nuclear weapons, because some anonymous source said so.

reply to post by Pinkorchid


Nukes have been lost but not unaccouted for. And their are no factions trying to take control. Why are we making up more stories to try and support a story we know is bogus.

reply to post by MrSpad


You may find this an interesting read :-

The fact that seventy or more military personnel have been punished in the case of the “lost” nuclear weapons does not mean, however, that the senior commanding officers responsible for having carried out the special operation will be identified and punished.

Quite the opposite. The investigation could indeed result in a camouflage of the chain of command, where lower-ranking military personnel are accused and court-martialed, with a view to ultimately protecting those in high office who have committed an act of treason.

The series of deaths mentioned above, may have no ties whatsoever with the the August flight in question from Minot to Barksdale, but the issues of command, monitoring, and authorization cannot be overlooked or ignored. The American people have before them a case of treason that involves the highest offices of government and most probably the offices of the President and the Vice-President.

www.globalresearch.ca...

My point is , this has happened before as stated in the above article , when another President was waging war. If it has not been cleared up , why is it not possible that it may be happening again?

Or is it another source you don't look at , for fear of perhaps learning the truth.

As for the Secret Shadow Government , well it was posted on Abovetopsecret here by a super moderator:-
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Zaphod58
reply to post by Pinkorchid

 

But according to Alex Jones these are unmarked trucks, like Uhaul or something, with no security. So she saw an unmarked truck driving around on base, and immediately knew they were transferring nuclear weapons?

That is a "win", sir.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


How about Russia, China, Iran? While Syria may not be a threat, they have some pretty strong allies that it seems Obama has not convinced that he is a NO BS guy. I don't think Putin takes Obama seriously, so the US seems to have lost some fear factor because Obama has pulled troops and decreased military muscle.

reply to post by MountainEnigma


It makes no real sense. Syria itself can't even reach the Continental United States, and to be any threat to strategic weapons the US has, they would either have to put a warhead right through the roof of a missile silo or drop a big nuke right above them, to account for guidance margin. Syria has nothing remotely like that, on any level. So, no threat on that level.

If Russia wanted to attack us to the level strategic weapons came into it? Well... The whole reason for the shell game of past decades was the fact the Russians didn't know what silos were operational or, which may even be real from what they could see. They did the same thing to us. Now, under disarmament treaties, both sides know precisely what the other has and generally, have had opposite military inside the facilities. Moving strategic weapons would put on quite a show to scare the public for no good reason....but if directed at the Russians? They'd laugh and pull out their US national location index and look up where it was headed to, based on highway and direction alone. lol...

China is no player for strategic weapons unless they have expanded enormously and in absolute secrecy, IMO. Every estimate I've seen or is published on Chinese nukes puts the number really low. They seem typically Chinese on it. lol.... Enough to get a job done, and no more to waste. Even on this. Not enough to go first strike though.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


What about an internal terrorist?
Or is that not possible is the U.S.

Your thinking outside in , what about the other way around?

I mean didn't some Arabs get flying lessons at one stage as the story goes ( and it is just that ) , so on that logic , with insider connections why wouldn't it be possible?

Or is that something that "Does not Compute".

I find it amusing that all eyes are on Russia, US, Syria and China. Wake up people!
Am I the only one who knows about the Samson defence? Create a distraction to take eyes off the real the real prize.







This is not a "He who dies with the most toys wins" t-shirt moment folks!

reply to post by Pinkorchid

I don't give any consideration to internal threat. I assume you mean like an outside force taking control of a silo or special weapons bunker and/or compromising nuclear weapons in some other way?

They could..in theory, perhaps, get a nuclear weapon in physical control. I doubt it..highly..but maybe a location exists somewhere in the US system where a vulnerability could be exploited. Never say never I suppose....

If they got a Silo though, good luck with the computers and launch systems. As they break in, all the lights and little displays go dark. Ooops.... A Minuteman II is a BIG sucker. Nothing to do with it, without all those electronics to support it.

As I understand this and have read about it in tech stuff? All the American (and Russian for that matter) nuke systems have fail safes that prevent use in the event of theft or, more likely, loss somehow. (I believe there are still a couple missing around the world from accidents over the decades, for why that comes up). They'd have better luck nuke hunting the test areas of the old Soviet Union. I understand they have duds and other material still out in their version of the Nevada Test Site. The poor SOBs going to get the stuff wouldn't live a week...but the ones waiting for what came might get what they want. I think the Russians guard even that wasteland very carefully.

Zaphod58
reply to post by Pinkorchid

 

But according to Alex Jones these are unmarked trucks, like Uhaul or something, with no security. So she saw an unmarked truck driving around on base, and immediately knew they were transferring nuclear weapons?

The real trucks have security. They are have a lead and follow along with a scout vehicle 1/2-5miles ahead. The driver is allowed only to stop motion with permission. And the truck is guard if driver steps away (discouraged unless serious).

There is more 'equipment' floating around than can ever be divulged. There are silos places people don't ever see. And there ARE transitional units that periodically DO CHANGE locations. WHAT RETARD WOULD HAVE EVERY WEAPON IN A KNOWN ----->fixed

reply to post by HanzHenry


I'm well aware of the security involved. But according to this report, they are being moved in simple Uhaul trucks with no security, so that no one knows what they are.

And no one has said that you put them all in a fixed location and leave them there. But you don't put them on a B-1 base, when the B-1 can't carry them, and fly B-52s and B-2s to that base to load them. You keep them stored near where you're going to use them. There is no reason for Dyess to have them stored there, because they don't do the nuclear mission.

reply to post by MountainEnigma


It would seem that elements of the present U.S. Government have new alliances , perhaps not even new but alliances with what some in the American population would consider to be the very same group of terrorists that masterminded 911. If this is so, would it not signal to the American people that a sub-set or takeover of the American Government by those that are linked with 911?

So we have a Senator who has blatantly and in full public and world view, met with terrorists.
Is this triggering any concern, it should?

US Sen. McCain visits Libyan rebel stronghold in Benghazi,Libyan rebel fighters take part in a training session during a visiting of US Sen.John McCain, R-AZ, (not seen) at their headquarters in their eastern stronghold city of Benghazi on April 22, 2011. McCain urged the international community to recognise the rebels' Transitional National Council (TNC) as the "legitimate voice" of the Libyan people.

www.upi.com... WaC6EzD

And most recently in Syria :-

Pressure on the White House to arm Syrian rebel groups is intensifying after a surprise visit by hawkish US senator John McCain and fresh reports of chemical weapons attacks.

www.theguardian.com...

Now if we just touch base with the events on the 11th September 2001, we will see from sources the inadequate defence of U.S. airspace , which by the way as the worlds greatest superpower , should have been almost impossible to do right?

The 9/11 Commission determined that on the morning of September 11, the FAA did not adequately notify NORAD of the hijackings of Flights 11, 175, 77 or 93 in time for escort aircraft to reach the hijacked flights.[citation needed]Notification of the hijacking of Flight 11 prompted the scrambling of two fighter jets from Otis Air National Guard Base, but they were not in the air until after Flight 11 had hit the North Tower. An erroneous FAA report of a hijacked plane heading towards Washington ("phantom Flight 11") prompted the scrambling of three more fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, which due to "poor communications", ended up flying eastward, out to sea, instead of heading toward Washington, significantly delaying their arrival on the scene.

en.wikipedia.org...

Further information states that there was no response until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. So who was in charge of NORAD on that fateful day?
U.S. Air Force General Ralph Edward Eberhart.

Why did Ralph Edward Eberhart not perform his duty on that day?

The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

1. Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
2. Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases
3. Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
4. Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

911research.wtc7.net...

Now lets ask the unthinkable question :-
Why was this allowed to occur , and further more why is the American Government associating with terrorists?
Also why has a Senator recently threatened a new attack on the U.S.?

Is it at all possible given the above information ,that a great deal of investigation and interest should be current with regard to any mention of alleged nuke movement no matter what the perceive infallibility of the U.S defence system.
Further, seeing as there are many factors that have not been adequately addressed and in light of the seemed allegiances currently in play?
Also shouldn't any source that even mentions this be at least considered?